32

Media relations (II)


 

Michael Ignatieff promises more access.

“I’ve been a working journalist. I’m not going to sweet talk you. I’m not going to say we don’t have an adversarial relationship. You’ve got a job to do, I’ve got a job to do. But … we have to do things differently. I just find the atmosphere poisonous.”

So what would the Prime Minister’s Office do differently under Mr. Ignatieff? “Do what we’re doing now. Sit down and talk,” he said. “I mean, I don’t want to spin you about this. We’ve got a message to get out. We want to shape the debate. Every government wants to do that; that’s legitimate. But you’ve got to have access. You’ve got to be able to hold me accountable.”

He says he’ll be more available than Mr. Harper, to hold more scrums and answer more questions. “I don’t want to sound like a Boy Scout. We’re going to have scrappy moments,” Mr. Ignatieff says. “Why not? Why not? That’s the other thing to say, why not?”


 

Media relations (II)

  1. Of course he's 'promising' more access, the msm is Iggy's friend. I, too, would talk a lot more with press if I was Liberal because they print hackneyed articles about how wonderful they are, and how they are doing everything right, even tho Libs are fourth in Quebec and hurting in suburbs around toronto.

    I remember last election and Linda Diebel on Duffy's show talking about how journos were giving Dion a break first week or two of election campaign to let him find his feet but he never did and finally msm had to start to report on ineptness. Same thing is happening now because Libs are not doing well in areas they have to but, once again, no discussion about dire Libs.

  2. Of course he's 'promising' more access, the msm is Iggy's friend. I, too, would talk a lot more with press if I was Liberal because they print hackneyed articles about how wonderful they are, and how they are doing everything right, even tho Libs are fourth in Quebec and hurting in suburbs around toronto.

    I remember last election and Linda Diebel on Duffy's show talking about how journos were giving Dion a break first week or two of election campaign to let him find his feet but he never did and finally msm had to start to report on ineptness. Same thing is happening now because Libs are not doing well in areas they have to but, once again, no discussion about dire Libs.

    • Listening only to people who confirm one's beliefs can impair intellectual development and harm rational decision-making.

      • I agree wholeheartedly. Canada's liberal msm makes me nuts because I am news junkie and not liberal so I have to read foreign sources to read conservative arguments.

        However, I am delighted with Liberal and msm relationship at political level because the coziness between the two is killing both. Msm is little more than Liberal cheerleader now and Libs don't ever really face dissent/discontent like Conservatives do. Libs have turned into JabbaHut, big and slothful and out of touch. There is a reason Libs have been slowly bleeding support over the years and one of the main ones is how insular they are.

        • This is exactly it. Ignatieff can easily promise more access to journalists because it's a pretty low risk proposition for him.

          My biggest problem is actually not the coverage that the Conservatives get; it's the degree that the media suppresses or downplays stories that might be damaging to the other parties, and in particular the Liberals; and it's to a degree that goes far beyond "they get less scrutiny because they are not the government". The conservatives have had media microscopes on them since 1993, ready to report even the slightest issue, so that argument simply doesn't wash; whereas Liberal immunity from "gotcha" journalism may soon be enshrined as a Charter right. And to that point, it really is a stacked deck against Harper, and it's not really a topic that the Conservatives can easily broach publicly. How does one criticize the media for what they don't write or broadcast?

          So when journalists start asking a bunch of questions about Tognieri, the access to information guy "caught" volunteering to hammer in lawn signs for a candidate but ignore Pablo Rodriguez and never question what the hell he is still doing in the Liberal shadow cabinet, I think Harper is right to wonder why he is the only leader facing such questions and having the stories put on the front page; when the media zero in for 3 days on Jason Kenney's misuse of a piece of stationary, but completely ignore complaints to the Ethics Commissioner about a Liberal MP illegally selling party memberships out of his MP constituency office, what is Harper supposed to think? How is he supposed to approach the situation when the deck is so clearly stacked?

          • Everyone knows you believe this or purport to believe this. You didn't have to write so many words on the topic. Again.

          • If the media would stop wondering so often why Harper ignores them and does something about it instead, I would not have to keep repeating myself.

          • And until the day Rahim Jaffer actually IS the same as that guy you claimed was an equivalence, you will have to keep deluding yourself!

          • Yeah! I actually don't want journalists not reporting stories, either, and I too am curious about the curious gag over Rodriguez.

            But as I was waking up this morning, my local news radio was announcing where the leaders would be today. Harper was somewhere, and Layton was somewhere else. What woke me up fully was that was the end of the bit on where the leaders would be today. And I know, because I'm a Liberal, that Ignatieff was due to be here, in Waterloo Region today. You know, the place the radio station covers. So they just didn't mention him at all.

    • You mean the same Duffy who used outtakes of an interview to make it look like Dion couldn't speak English when it was a technical issue with his ear monitor? Okay Bergkamp, da proof is da proof I guess.

      You know, it is entirely possible that this man, this Ignatieff, is actually committing to being an open and transparent leader. Just because Harper pulled the wool over your eyes doesn't mean everyone will. I know that Stockholm Syndrome is difficult to detect, but you may just want to open your eyes a little bit further towards your own man rather than Iggy.

      • The great thing is a few tiny bones in the direction of transparency and open-ness and he can take credit for being better than Harper. Hopefully if elected PM Iggy won't squander the opportunity like Harper did with "accountability".

    • Here we go again. The paranoid conservative conspiracy theory that everyone, EVERYONE, is out to get them.

      The sane people around here recognize this as an excuse for you not to hold Harper and his team accountable for their own mis-steps and lack of accountability.

    • I dunno. Plenty of liberals thought the media wasn't giving them a fair shake last election. For one thing, every mention of the carbon tax was preceded by the words complex, confusing, etc. and the reporter would dutifully feign confusion. It was bizarre. The carbon tax was no more complicated than say, the CPC's income splitting proposal or the Lib's education passport thingy.

  3. Listening only to people who confirm one's beliefs can impair intellectual development and harm rational decision-making.

  4. You mean the same Duffy who used outtakes of an interview to make it look like Dion couldn't speak English when it was a technical issue with his ear monitor? Okay Bergkamp, da proof is da proof I guess.

    You know, it is entirely possible that this man, this Ignatieff, is actually committing to being an open and transparent leader. Just because Harper pulled the wool over your eyes doesn't mean everyone will. I know that Stockholm Syndrome is difficult to detect, but you may just want to open your eyes a little bit further towards your own man rather than Iggy.

  5. Watched the CBC news last night and they reported that as journos asked why Stephen Harper was limiting questions, the Conservative team replied keep asking that, and you'll get us a majority

    The strategy? I suppose it's that voters will get turned off and apathy will allow the Conservative base to have a greater impact. Or it could be Mr Harper casting himself as the underdog, standing tall against coalitions that include the media?

    Now, it's no secret that I am not a fan of Stephen Harper. Still, I ask his supporters to explain to me how this is good for the electorate? Good for Canada?
    Mr Harper likes to wrap himself in the flag, but how does this strategy reflect Canadian values? There's no honour in this.

    Now Michael Ignatieff is offering greater accessibility. Yes I know he is providing contrast to Mr Harper, and that this openness will be rethought when the inevitable happens and he gets burned for it. But at least it's something.

    Stephen Harper once ran on a platform of "transparency and accountability." He has delivered neither, and this limiting of questions is yet another example of a very controlling man reneging on a promise.

    Spare me the lectures on the "libdipbloc" leftist media. Who would you suggest gets to ask the questions? FOX? Mike Duffy? No one?
    It is Mr Harper's right to refuse to answer questions, but it is not transparent, nor is it accountable. It is a strategy that does not serve the electorate, only the Conservative party – and voter apathy should not be the committee rewarding him for it.
    Mr Harper once told us "I can take a punch." But that is meaningless when you refuse to enter the ring.

  6. Watched the CBC news last night and they reported that as journos asked why Stephen Harper was limiting questions, the Conservative team replied keep asking that, and you'll get us a majority

    The strategy? I suppose it's that voters will get turned off and apathy will allow the Conservative base to have a greater impact. Or it could be Mr Harper casting himself as the underdog, standing tall against coalitions that include the media?

    Now, it's no secret that I am not a fan of Stephen Harper. Still, I ask his supporters to explain to me how this is good for the electorate? Good for Canada?
    Mr Harper likes to wrap himself in the flag, but how does this strategy reflect Canadian values? There's no honour in this.

    Now Michael Ignatieff is offering greater accessibility. Yes I know he is providing contrast to Mr Harper, and that this openness will be rethought when the inevitable happens and he gets burned for it. But at least it's something.

    Stephen Harper once ran on a platform of "transparency and accountability." He has delivered neither, and this limiting of questions is yet another example of a very controlling man reneging on a promise.

    Spare me the lectures on the "libdipbloc" leftist media. Who would you suggest gets to ask the questions? FOX? Mike Duffy? No one?
    It is Mr Harper's right to refuse to answer questions, but it is not transparent, nor is it accountable. It is a strategy that does not serve the electorate, only the Conservative party – and voter apathy should not be the committee rewarding him for it.
    Mr Harper once told us "I can take a punch." But that is meaningless when you refuse to enter the ring.

    • To Danby: Bravo. Well put.

    • CBC also noted that the only interviews Harper is giving are to friendly reporters, like his former PMO employee who now hosts a radio show in Halifax.

  7. I agree wholeheartedly. Canada's liberal msm makes me nuts because I am news junkie and not liberal so I have to read foreign sources to read conservative arguments.

    However, I am delighted with Liberal and msm relationship at political level because the coziness between the two is killing both. Msm is little more than Liberal cheerleader now and Libs don't ever really face dissent/discontent like Conservatives do. Libs have turned into JabbaHut, big and slothful and out of touch. There is a reason Libs have been slowly bleeding support over the years and one of the main ones is how insular they are.

  8. To Danby: Bravo. Well put.

  9. Here we go again. The paranoid conservative conspiracy theory that everyone, EVERYONE, is out to get them.

    The sane people around here recognize this as an excuse for you not to hold Harper and his team accountable for their own mis-steps and lack of accountability.

  10. The great thing is a few tiny bones in the direction of transparency and open-ness and he can take credit for being better than Harper. Hopefully if elected PM Iggy won't squander the opportunity like Harper did with "accountability".

  11. CBC also noted that the only interviews Harper is giving are to friendly reporters, like his former PMO employee who now hosts a radio show in Halifax.

  12. It's not even strategic. It's a mere tactic.

  13. It's not even strategic. It's a mere tactic.

  14. This is exactly it. Ignatieff can easily promise more access to journalists because it's a pretty low risk proposition for him.

    My biggest problem is actually not the coverage that the Conservatives get; it's the degree that the media suppresses or downplays stories that might be damaging to the other parties, and in particular the Liberals; and it's to a degree that goes far beyond "they get less scrutiny because they are not the government". The conservatives have had media microscopes on them since 1993, ready to report even the slightest issue, so that argument simply doesn't wash; whereas Liberal immunity from "gotcha" journalism may soon be enshrined as a Charter right. And to that point, it really is a stacked deck against Harper, and it's not really a topic that the Conservatives can easily broach publicly. How does one criticize the media for what they don't write or broadcast?

    So when journalists start asking a bunch of questions about Tognieri, the access to information guy "caught" volunteering to hammer in lawn signs for a candidate but ignore Pablo Rodriguez and never question what the hell he is still doing in the Liberal shadow cabinet, I think Harper is right to wonder why he is the only leader facing such questions and having the stories put on the front page; when the media zero in for 3 days on Jason Kenney's misuse of a piece of stationary, but completely ignore complaints to the Ethics Commissioner about a Liberal MP illegally selling party memberships out of his MP constituency office, what is Harper supposed to think? How is he supposed to approach the situation when the deck is so clearly stacked?

  15. I dunno. Plenty of liberals thought the media wasn't giving them a fair shake last election. For one thing, every mention of the carbon tax was preceded by the words complex, confusing, etc. and the reporter would dutifully feign confusion. It was bizarre. The carbon tax was no more complicated than say, the CPC's income splitting proposal or the Lib's education passport thingy.

  16. Everyone knows you believe this or purport to believe this. You didn't have to write so many words on the topic. Again.

  17. If the media would stop wondering so often why Harper ignores them and does something about it instead, I would not have to keep repeating myself.

  18. And until the day Rahim Jaffer actually IS the same as that guy you claimed was an equivalence, you will have to keep deluding yourself!

  19. Yeah! I actually don't want journalists not reporting stories, either, and I too am curious about the curious gag over Rodriguez.

    But as I was waking up this morning, my local news radio was announcing where the leaders would be today. Harper was somewhere, and Layton was somewhere else. What woke me up fully was that was the end of the bit on where the leaders would be today. And I know, because I'm a Liberal, that Ignatieff was due to be here, in Waterloo Region today. You know, the place the radio station covers. So they just didn't mention him at all.

Sign in to comment.